Apple explains why getting iPhone apps outside the App Store is a bad idea

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,731member
    Man, I see a lot of blocked posters at it (via quotes). Proves I was right to block those idiots/trolls in the first place.

    To the people who claim that iPhone users who stick to The App Store will remain safe while others who sideload can take the risk themselves if they wish to. To this I say:

    Are you fucking stupid?

    What if my family use a calendar App to schedule our lives, and one of them has their iPhone hacked and someone gains access to all our scheduled events? How protected are we then? So a crook knows when we’re on vacation (to rob our house) or that my younger daughter has a late night shift and gets off at 2:00am? Or personal information like who our doctors are or if anyone is in therapy?

    This is just one example of a common type of application where users who stick to The App Store can have their privacy invaded by malware downloaded by a third party.

    Seriously, did any of you think this through?

    Good point...
    Those who fail to lock all of their doors really don't know what all to expect.
    The creativity of scammers and criminals knows no boundaries.
    Fidonet127Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 102 of 138
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,130member
    Man, I see a lot of blocked posters at it (via quotes). Proves I was right to block those idiots/trolls in the first place.

    To the people who claim that iPhone users who stick to The App Store will remain safe while others who sideload can take the risk themselves if they wish to. To this I say:

    Are you fucking stupid?

    What if my family use a calendar App to schedule our lives, and one of them has their iPhone hacked and someone gains access to all our scheduled events? How protected are we then? So a crook knows when we’re on vacation (to rob our house) or that my younger daughter has a late night shift and gets off at 2:00am? Or personal information like who our doctors are or if anyone is in therapy?

    This is just one example of a common type of application where users who stick to The App Store can have their privacy invaded by malware downloaded by a third party.

    Seriously, did any of you think this through?
    Do your family exclusively use iPhones for calendars?  Mine doesn't, so your scenario doesn't work at all.  If even one of your family use a calendar app on a device other than an iPhone then your security hypothesis is compromised.  And that means none of it makes such sense in the real world.
    avon b7
  • Reply 103 of 138
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,273member
    bleab said:
    I look at it this way. For flagship Android devices that have prices similar to an iPhone i.e. Samsung Galaxy S and Note as well as Google Pixel devices, then the ability to use third party app stores like Amazon and Samsung and sideload apps from APKMirror, F-Droid and itch.io is a major platform advantage and differentiator for power users. (Before you say "what about Android viruses and security!" suffice to say that people who actually use Android have a very different view of that platform's actual security situation than do people that are far more likely to bash Android than actually use it: https://www.androidcentral.com/why-android-security-fearmongering-bs ). But force iOS to be just like Android in this way and that is one less major reason to buy a Galaxy S21 FE instead of an iPhone 12 Mini (they cost about the same) or a Samsung Galaxy Tab instead of an iPad Air (again, about the same cost). 

    So ... I would say that Samsung, Google, OnePlus, Xiaomi and the rest should root for Apple here. Android does better when it is different from iOS - be it price or features - and not the same. Samsung realized this, and by focusing on features that iPhones don't (yet) have became #1 in smartphone sales. Meanwhile Google is now 5 years into their "iPhone except running Android!" (who only Samsung haters like ... iPhone fans obviously have no use for them and actual Android types don't like them either) strategy and is actually selling fewer devices than they did in the Nexus era (because the Nexus differentiated from the iPhone also). 
    This comes at the crux of the matter, but from the opposite direction than traditionally seen here, thank you. 

    That is: the app store is not a monopoly. Consumer (and developer) choice happens at the device level, where competition is significant. Some people want the Android approach. Let them choose it. Some people want the Apple approach. Let them choose it. Forcing Apple to function more like Android does not equal "freedom." It artificially narrows product differentiation, which is using too many syllables to say it reduces choice. 
    BiggieTallwilliamlondonforegoneconclusionGeorgeBMacwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 104 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,304member
    No matter the arguments or which side you fall on the one thing that seems abundantly obvious: the AppStore will not continue for much longer as is. Changes are coming even if it is not yet clear what they will entail. 

    EDIT; I just noticed Google has dropped their cut to 15% across several categories of apps, in addition to matching Apple's small developer offer of 15%. I would not be shocked if Apple does the same, extending their 15% offer beyond the fairly limited one currently in place.
    edited June 24
  • Reply 105 of 138
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,130member
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.
    muthuk_vanalingamavon b7
  • Reply 106 of 138
    tylersdadtylersdad Posts: 311member
    jungmark said:
    tylersdad said:
    More ridiculous FUD from Apple. I don't need Apple to provide guard rails. I suppose some do, but there certainly must be a way of providing power users with the ability to sideload apps, while keeping average users within the guard rails. 
    Sounds like Android should be your choice. 
    Ridiculous. Because I want to have more control over a device I PAID FOR, I should ditch Apple and go with Android? 

    No. I hate Android. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 107 of 138
    tylersdadtylersdad Posts: 311member
    nicholfd said:
    Jlong said:
    nicholfd said:
    Jlong said:
    Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
    • There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
    • There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
    • There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
    Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly. 

    Yep - because there's only one company that makes iOS & iOS compatible devices.  Apple.  This does not make it a monopoly.

    It's their product and consumers can decide to buy it, or buy Android.  Consumers have a choice.

    1. Apple makes some of the IOS apps,
    2. Apple does not make all the IOS apps.

    The monopoly isn't about Apple making apple devices either, the monopoly lies in the way that you can get, sell and install the apps. There is only 1 place where you can get IOS apps.

    As for consumer choice, there is no consumer choice. You're confusing all "apps" vs "IOS Apps". There are many ways to get "apps" but 1 way to get IOS apps. 
    You missed the point.  It's Apples product and Apples ecosystem.  Apple sets the rules.  Period.

    There is consumer choice - Android.  Don't like Apple's mobile products/ecosystem/rules?  Buy Android.

    What do you think about Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft's gaming systems?  They only allow "apps" (games generally, but not necessarily - Plex, VLC, etc.) to be sold through their App Store & mandate the same % cut.  Their products, their ecosystems, their rules.  
    OK, so taking that logic to its inevitable conclusion....

    My Internet provider is Comcast. It's their product and their ecosystem, so they set the rules right? They say what I can and can't do with the service they provide in their ecosystem? 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 108 of 138
    Microsoft just demonstrated Android apps fully supported inside Windows 11. They also have a zero fee app store model if your app sells its own apps such as Adobe Creative Cloud. On top of all that they also showed that a traditional desktop operating system CAN work on a touch screen with some fairly minor modifications.
    Wake the heck up, Apple!
  • Reply 109 of 138
    Microsoft just demonstrated Android apps fully supported inside Windows 11. They also have a zero fee app store model if your app sells its own apps such as Adobe Creative Cloud. On top of all that they also showed that a traditional desktop operating system CAN work on a touch screen with some fairly minor modifications.
    Wake the heck up, Apple!
    So you're saying that there's competition in the OS industry? That's what Apple is saying too. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 110 of 138
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.
    Nintendo already won a U.S. lawsuit that set the legal precedent for this. Total control of software on the hardware platform that your own company manufactures is not considered to be an antitrust violation. That's why you're seeing the U.S. Congress go with a market cap approach in this matter. They can't really try and claim the console software model is illegal under current law and there probably wouldn't be political support for a "do over" on antitrust laws that would effect the entire market. So they're going to try and say "these specific things won't be legal for a company with a market cap of $600 billion or higher, but they will still be legal for companies under the cap". 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 111 of 138
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 717member
    gatorguy said:
    No matter the arguments or which side you fall on the one thing that seems abundantly obvious: the AppStore will not continue for much longer as is. Changes are coming even if it is not yet clear what they will entail. 

    EDIT; I just noticed Google has dropped their cut to 15% across several categories of apps, in addition to matching Apple's small developer offer of 15%. I would not be shocked if Apple does the same, extending their 15% offer beyond the fairly limited one currently in place.
    Apple already dropped to 15% for ALL app categories for developers with less than $1 Million USD in annual sales - not just some categories.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 112 of 138
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 717member
    tylersdad said:
    nicholfd said:
    Jlong said:
    nicholfd said:
    Jlong said:
    Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
    • There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
    • There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
    • There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
    Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly. 

    Yep - because there's only one company that makes iOS & iOS compatible devices.  Apple.  This does not make it a monopoly.

    It's their product and consumers can decide to buy it, or buy Android.  Consumers have a choice.

    1. Apple makes some of the IOS apps,
    2. Apple does not make all the IOS apps.

    The monopoly isn't about Apple making apple devices either, the monopoly lies in the way that you can get, sell and install the apps. There is only 1 place where you can get IOS apps.

    As for consumer choice, there is no consumer choice. You're confusing all "apps" vs "IOS Apps". There are many ways to get "apps" but 1 way to get IOS apps. 
    You missed the point.  It's Apples product and Apples ecosystem.  Apple sets the rules.  Period.

    There is consumer choice - Android.  Don't like Apple's mobile products/ecosystem/rules?  Buy Android.

    What do you think about Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft's gaming systems?  They only allow "apps" (games generally, but not necessarily - Plex, VLC, etc.) to be sold through their App Store & mandate the same % cut.  Their products, their ecosystems, their rules.  
    OK, so taking that logic to its inevitable conclusion....

    My Internet provider is Comcast. It's their product and their ecosystem, so they set the rules right? They say what I can and can't do with the service they provide in their ecosystem? 
    This is not a valid comparison, but actually yes - if you have home internet service, some ports are blocked and you cannot run e-mail servers, etc.

    A better comparison would be with Comcast cable boxes they supply - you're not allowed to tell them what channels they will provide.  You're not allowed to make them let you rent/purchase PPV from Google or Amazon (stores).
    edited June 24 williamlondonGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 113 of 138
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 717member
    Microsoft just demonstrated Android apps fully supported inside Windows 11. They also have a zero fee app store model if your app sells its own apps such as Adobe Creative Cloud. On top of all that they also showed that a traditional desktop operating system CAN work on a touch screen with some fairly minor modifications.
    Wake the heck up, Apple!
    So?  Microsoft does a lot of dumb things, poorly.  Why should Apple follow?

    And I disagree - Windows sucks on a tablet.  I've owned several.  
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 114 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,731member
    gatorguy said:
    No matter the arguments or which side you fall on the one thing that seems abundantly obvious: the AppStore will not continue for much longer as is. Changes are coming even if it is not yet clear what they will entail. 

    EDIT; I just noticed Google has dropped their cut to 15% across several categories of apps, in addition to matching Apple's small developer offer of 15%. I would not be shocked if Apple does the same, extending their 15% offer beyond the fairly limited one currently in place.

    Perhaps...
    But then it's common these days for ideologues to confuse attacks, allegations and accusations with proof of guilt or wrongdoing.  
    It's the "Many people are saying..." approach...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 115 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,731member
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    I would agree -- except that I have never heard Apple raise that argument until forced to by these allegations against them.   Actually, I've been wondering when they would bring it up.

    And, holding back was wise because you know what will inevitably happen:  An app loaded from the App Store will corrupt somebody's phone - and they will scream "Apple said this was secure!"  When, in actuality all Apple has done or can do is increase security to the highest practical level.  But they can't make it bullet proof.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 116 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,731member
    tylersdad said:
    jungmark said:
    tylersdad said:
    More ridiculous FUD from Apple. I don't need Apple to provide guard rails. I suppose some do, but there certainly must be a way of providing power users with the ability to sideload apps, while keeping average users within the guard rails. 
    Sounds like Android should be your choice. 
    Ridiculous. Because I want to have more control over a device I PAID FOR, I should ditch Apple and go with Android? 

    No. I hate Android. 

    That's an interesting argument:
    You hate Android -- but you want to degrade Apple products to be more like them.
    watto_cobraArchStanton
  • Reply 117 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,731member
    tylersdad said:
    nicholfd said:
    Jlong said:
    nicholfd said:
    Jlong said:
    Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
    • There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
    • There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
    • There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
    Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly. 

    Yep - because there's only one company that makes iOS & iOS compatible devices.  Apple.  This does not make it a monopoly.

    It's their product and consumers can decide to buy it, or buy Android.  Consumers have a choice.

    1. Apple makes some of the IOS apps,
    2. Apple does not make all the IOS apps.

    The monopoly isn't about Apple making apple devices either, the monopoly lies in the way that you can get, sell and install the apps. There is only 1 place where you can get IOS apps.

    As for consumer choice, there is no consumer choice. You're confusing all "apps" vs "IOS Apps". There are many ways to get "apps" but 1 way to get IOS apps. 
    You missed the point.  It's Apples product and Apples ecosystem.  Apple sets the rules.  Period.

    There is consumer choice - Android.  Don't like Apple's mobile products/ecosystem/rules?  Buy Android.

    What do you think about Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft's gaming systems?  They only allow "apps" (games generally, but not necessarily - Plex, VLC, etc.) to be sold through their App Store & mandate the same % cut.  Their products, their ecosystems, their rules.  
    OK, so taking that logic to its inevitable conclusion....

    My Internet provider is Comcast. It's their product and their ecosystem, so they set the rules right? They say what I can and can't do with the service they provide in their ecosystem? 

    Yep!  That's the way it is.  That's what so called "Net Neutrality" was all about:  giving Comcast, FiOS and other ISPs control of your internet access.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 118 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,731member
    Microsoft just demonstrated Android apps fully supported inside Windows 11. They also have a zero fee app store model if your app sells its own apps such as Adobe Creative Cloud. On top of all that they also showed that a traditional desktop operating system CAN work on a touch screen with some fairly minor modifications.
    Wake the heck up, Apple!
    That kind of open architecture has its advantages.
    But it also has costs and disadvantages from closed systems.

    Fortunately we get to pick which we want.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 119 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,731member
    Microsoft just demonstrated Android apps fully supported inside Windows 11. They also have a zero fee app store model if your app sells its own apps such as Adobe Creative Cloud. On top of all that they also showed that a traditional desktop operating system CAN work on a touch screen with some fairly minor modifications.
    Wake the heck up, Apple!
    So you're saying that there's competition in the OS industry? That's what Apple is saying too. 

    Thanks! I didn't know that Apple was selling retail versions (or even OEM versions) of iOS.
    I'm going to run right over to my Apple Store and buy a copy.
  • Reply 120 of 138
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,660member
    foregoneconclusion said:
    Those kinds of statements prove that Apple's approach to iOS is providing choice to consumers, not limiting it. Forcing iOS to be Windows/Android is narrowing consumer choice. 
    Forcing Apple to offer users the ability to put software on their devices outside of Apples oversight is not narrowing choice.  And no, I'm not talking about loading android on iPhones (seriously?!?) but just the ability to put apps from other sources into iOS.  

    Apple adding that takes *nothing* from you if you choose not to avail yourself of that option.  iOS continues to work as it always had.  However after that change, people who want software Apple doesn't approve of will now have the choice to run it if they so desire.  That's more choice.  
    williamlondon
Sign In or Register to comment.